R. v. Aecon Construction Group Inc.

R. v. Aecon Construction Group Inc.

The court declined to scrutinize the efficiency of the state investigation absent evidence of abuse of process and found on the balance of probabilities there was no undue pre-charge delay (s.11(d)). Applying Jordan and related jurisprudence, the court calculated total delay (32 months +), deducted explicit and implicit defence waivers and defence-caused delay to reach a net delay above the 18‑month ceiling, then deducted discrete exceptional delays (underestimation of trial length) to arrive at a resulting delay of 17 months and 14 days, below the 18‑month presumptive ceiling; therefore there was no s.11(b) breach and no stay.

Citation
2017 NSPC 61
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Aecon Construction Group Inc.
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal (occupational Health and Safety Act) / Application for Stay / Trial in Progress
Outcome
Defence application for stay dismissed; no stay granted
Legal Topics
Unreasonable Delay (s.11(b) Charter), Pre Charge Delay / Fair Trial (s.11(d) Charter), Disclosure and Lost Evidence, Stay of Proceedings, Abuse of Process, Jordan Framework and Transitional Morin Analysis
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Occupational Health and Safety Law Procedural Law Unreasonable Delay (s.11(b) Charter) Pre Charge Delay / Fair Trial (s.11(d) Charter) Disclosure and Lost Evidence Stay of Proceedings +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Aecon Construction Group Inc.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal (occupational Health and Safety Act) / Application for Stay / Trial in Progress

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether pre-charge delay amounted to a breach of s.11(d) of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether the time to trial violated s.11(b) of the Charter under the Jordan framework
  3. 3 Whether lost or non-disclosed evidence prejudices the defendant's ability to make full answer and defence

Ratio Decidendi

The court declined to scrutinize the efficiency of the state investigation absent evidence of abuse of process and found on the balance of probabilities there was no undue pre-charge delay (s.11(d)). Applying Jordan and related jurisprudence, the court calculated total delay (32 months +), deducted explicit and implicit defence waivers and defence-caused delay to reach a net delay above the 18‑month ceiling, then deducted discrete exceptional delays (underestimation of trial length) to arrive at a resulting delay of 17 months and 14 days, below the 18‑month presumptive ceiling; therefore there was no s.11(b) breach and no stay.

Court Disposition

Defence application for stay dismissed; no stay granted

Orders

  • Defence application to stay proceedings dismissed; charges not stayed on grounds of s.11(b) or s.11(d)